[General] STR
Albrecht Giese
phys at a-giese.de
Wed May 24 12:01:31 PDT 2017
Hi Wolf,
Am 22.05.2017 um 06:11 schrieb Wolfgang Baer:
>
> I completely agree with Chandra EM waves are quantized during
> interaction with matter and then we project the quantized material
> state changes back into the waves as a mathematical convenience
>
We have discussed this topic earlier here and I have referred to my PhD
experiment. In that experiment we have used electrons of a well defined
energy to convert them into photons. The photons were after a flight of
several meters in the air detected by pair building in a thin layer of
copper. The energy of the pair was measured, and the measurement showed
the energy of the original electron. So, how can we understand this
result if it is not the photon which carries exactly this energy and
which is quantized with this energy?
>
> to answer some of Albrecht's comments on my 5,15,17 comment; I'm
> introducing some new ideas in order to include the mind in physical
> theory. Treated individually one can reject them because anything new
> can be rejected when one assumes the old is correct. So have patience.
>
> 1) "That means a force between charge and mass?" yes it means what it
> says. Mass and charge are assumed to be properties of particles.
> Particles have been assumed to be points and so mass and charge are
> located at points. I believe this is wrong. Mass and charge should be
> given separate degrees of freedom and the force between them is not
> infinite.
>
The force is indeed not infinite, on the contrary, there cannot be a
force at all. If we look at the forces of charges, it is obvious (in the
mind of physicists) that a charge can only interact with a charge of the
same type. So the electrical charge and the charge of the strong force
will by common understanding not react in any way. And if now mass is
understood as some type of a charge (which is, however, not the
understanding of present physics) then there should not be any force
between e.g. an electric charge and a mass.
If we look deeper into what mass is by present understanding, then
charges may influence the dynamical process which we call "inertia". But
that is in that case a complicated logical connection.
>
> 2)"The question here is again: what is more fundamental, action or
> force?" The rest of your comments are simply addressing an
> incomplete presentation of my theory. However I consider dynamics or
> simply change to be fundamental. Reality is action in a form. Action
> is the material of change. Form is the state in which it is manifest.
> Action is fundamental , Energy is the rate of action happening, force
> is the experience of all finite particles in a non homogeneous action
> flow who all want to experience more action. I think it is best to
> defer this discussion to either metaphysics or when I have complete
> presentation ready.
>
Yes, then we should better wait. - But up to now I still follow this
argument that action is something which the human brain needs to
structure the world so that it fits into our brains. Particles which
react to each other do not have this need. They react to a force, and
the force and also the reaction to it can be infinitesimal. An action is
(by my understanding) something which happens or does not happen. I do
not see infinitesimal single steps which each can be understood as an
action. So, this is my argument that action is a typical case of "human
understanding".
>
> SRT:
>
> "First: this whole process has absolutely nothing to do with gravity.
> Why do you connect it to gravity?" Because I have seen the twin
> paradox explained by including gravity in text books. clocks slow down
> because of velocity but speed up because of acceleration the two
> cancel when two twins are accelerated with constant acceleration for
> the first quarter of the trip, the ship turned around decelerated for
> the second quarter and continued to be accelerated toward the start
> point, during the third quarter and then rocket reverses for the third
> quarter and come to rest rest at the origin where the second twin has
> been waiting at rest. Now both twins will agree on the amount of time
> passing. The paradox is said to be resolved because Einstein's Srt is
> expanded to GRT and gravity is introduced.
>
Can you please give me a reference to a text book which connects the
twin paradox to gravity? I never heard about such an idea; and the
discussion about ageing refers to the time dilation in SRT. You can
perform this twin paradox in an environment where no gravitational
sources are around, and it would work as usually described.
According to SRT clocks slow down because of velocity. The degree of
slow-down is related to the speed of the clocks and to nothing else.
Acceleration or deceleration have no influence to the behaviour of
clock. This statement you will find uniformly in all textbooks.
Then you write: "... and then rocket reverses for the third quarter and
come to rest rest at the origin where the second twin has been waiting
at rest." Now I am confused. I have understood that both twins move and
change their motion at exactly the same times. How can it then happen
that on twin is at rest and expects the other one?
>
> "And second: the whole process as you describe it is completely
> symmetrical. Both twins make the same experience with time and with
> there according ageing. Where the hell do you see a paradox?" The
> paradox is that both twins see the other moving at a constant velocity
> for an arbitrarily long period of time
>
why for an arbitrarily long period of time? It is only for the time
until the other twin changes his speed.
>
> and each one would according to SRT calculate the other twin has aged
> relative to himself. both cannot be right. by making the acceleration
> period small and symmetric the coast period large i eliminate the
> gravity explanation but retain an arbitrarily long constant velocity.
> SO SRT HAS A PARADOX AND IT CANNOT BE RESOLVED IN GRT.
>
Perhaps I understand now where you see the paradox. Assume the following
case which is sometimes discussed. There are two observers, A and B, and
both have clocks with them. We assume that both observers move with
respect to each other. Then observer A will find that the clock of
observer B runs more slowly. But as both observers are physically
equivalent also observer B will find that the clock of observer A runs
more slowly.
This sounds like a paradox or even like a logical conflict. But it is
not. To see why not we have to have a closer look on how clock speeds
(or the time in different frames) are compared. It is not as simple as
it looks like.
If the observer A will compare his clock run with the one of observer B,
he will e.g. place two of his clocks, which we will call clock 1 and
clock 2 (and which he has of course synchronized) along the path of
observer B. Then he will compare the clock of observer B with his clock
1 and then with clock 2 in the moment when the observer B passes these
clocks. The result will be that the clock of observer B have run more
slowly.
But how now the other way around? The observer B can of course compare
his clock with both clocks of observer A when he passes these clocks.
But now a difference: Both clocks of observer A have been synchronized
in the frame of A. But in the frame of B they will not be synchronized
(a fundamental fact in SRT). From the view of observer B the clock 1 of
observer A will be retarded with respect to the clock 2. So, the
observer B can reproduce the observation of observer A in the way that
observer A sees the clock of B slowed down. But observer B will use a
different method to determine the speed of the clocks of observer A.
Observe B will also position two clocks along the path which observer A
follows in frame B and he will synchronize these clocks in /*his*/ frame
B. And with his clocks he will find that the clocks of A run slower
compared to his own ones.
This different clock synchronization follows from the time-related part
of the Lorentz transformation:
t = gamma*(t'-vx/c^2 ) with gamma = sqrt(1/(1 - v^2 /c^2 )).
Regarding the example above v is the speed between the frames of A and of B.
Is this understandable? (I have presented it in Porto Novo when I talked
about the problem of de Broglie with SRT.) If not clear, please ask
further questions I and shall go into more details.
>
> *do my Emails show up*
>
> *I CC'd you and you should get this directly and in
> general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org*
>
> Let me know if you get them
>
I have received your mail once. But last time also Chandra and Adrew
have answered. So the general distribution seems to work
Albrecht
>
> Wolf
>
>
> Dr. Wolfgang Baer
> Research Director
> Nascent Systems Inc.
> tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
> E-mailwolf at NascentInc.com
> On 5/20/2017 12:19 PM, Roychoudhuri, Chandra wrote:
>>
>> Hi Andrew W.:
>>
>> Yes, I basically agree with you that STR is not a theory of physics.
>> It is smart mathematics only.
>>
>> Whereas, photoelectric equation is physics, even though, quantization
>> is postulated wrongly on EM waves, rather than on quantum
>> mechanically bound electrons!
>>
>> Chandra.
>>
>> ==================================
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: General
>> [mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]
>> On Behalf Of ANDREW WORSLEY
>> Sent: Saturday, May 20, 2017 2:24 AM
>> To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
>> <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>; Wolfgang Baer
>> <wolf at nascentinc.com>
>> Subject: Re: [General] HA: Gravity
>>
>> Hi all
>>
>> STR is a complex subject - all observers are equal - but then implies
>> reciprocity, that's the bit that's flawed actually
>>
>> ========================================
>>
>> Message Received: May 18 2017, 08:34 PM
>>
>> From: "Albrecht Giese"
>>
>> To: "Wolfgang Baer" , "Nature of Light and Particles - General
>> Discussion"
>>
>> Cc:
>>
>> Subject: Re: [General] HA: Gravity
>>
>> Hi Wolf,
>>
>> again comments in the text.
>>
>> Am 15.05.2017 um 02:01 schrieb Wolfgang Baer:
>>
>> >
>>
>> > No Kc is the spring constant of the force holding charge and mass
>>
>> > together
>>
>> >
>>
>> That means a force between charge and mass? To my understanding mass
>> and charge are completely different categories as a wrote last time.
>> Charge is a permanent property of some object, whereas mass is a
>> dynamical process which also changes when the object changes its
>> motion state (which at the end is : relativity).
>>
>> >
>>
>> > In order to build a framework of a physical theory that properly
>>
>> > includes the observer as a measurement model building and acting
>>
>> > component I use a very simplified concept built on the classic
>>
>> > metaphysical ideas that mass,charge, space, time along with the forces
>>
>> > between them are fundamental. Here are some of the differences between
>>
>> > my cognitive action theory CAT and classic physics
>>
>> >
>>
>> Just a question at this point: to which set of "metaphysical ideas"
>> do you refer? If we refer to main stream physics, at least mass is a
>> different category. And also time and space are most probably
>> different categories from the others, at least for some of the
>> physical community.
>>
>> >
>>
>> > * Summary of Action Theory additions to Classic Physical Concepts*
>>
>> >
>>
>> > The examples provided in this section are intended to show how action
>>
>> > theory is applied to well known and observable situations that can be
>>
>> > compared with analysis using classical physics concepts. What CAT has
>>
>> > added is summarized as follows:
>>
>> >
>>
>> > -Change involving transitions between states is where physics is
>>
>> > happening.
>>
>> >
>>
>> > -Change, visualized as stable action patterns, propagates through
>>
>> > material media.
>>
>> >
>>
>> > -The degrees of freedom of classical systems has been doubled by
>>
>> > separating mass and charge.
>>
>> >
>>
>> > -Internal material forces between mass and charge are introduced as
>>
>> > heuristic visualizations to augment understanding of the interior of
>>
>> > matter which is conventionally the domain of quantum theory (see
>>
>> > chapter 6)
>>
>> >
>>
>> > -Mach’s principle and the connection between the inertial field is
>>
>> > introduced in place of the observational pseudo forces such as the
>>
>> > centrifugal force and “m∙a” in Newton’s formulation. (See Appendix on
>>
>> > Mach’s Principle)
>>
>> >
>>
>> > -Time is defined as the name of the state of the system adopted as a
>>
>> > clock, and time intervals are measured as action required to change a
>>
>> > state separated by a constant state distance.
>>
>> >
>>
>> > Action theory is being developed as the physical underpinnings of an
>>
>> > event oriented world view and a description of reality which includes
>>
>> > both the subjective and objective aspect of reality described by CAT.
>>
>> The question here is again: what is more fundamental, action or force?
>>
>> In the reductionist's world the fundamental processes are very simple
>> but go on in a huge number. So, it is a tendency, or a good strategy
>> of our brains to build categories. For instance, there are billions
>> of trees on our earth. No brain of a human being is able to register
>> and to remember all these trees. So, our brain build the category
>> "tree".
>>
>> That is helpful. But the cells in the trees have no logical
>> connection to the category-building, they follow fundamental rules.
>>
>> In an analogue way, there is a force between charges (else not!). If
>> objects move which have charges the forces will cause that the motion
>> of the objects is influenced, the path changes accordingly. That is
>> fundamental. A human brain can now build the category of an "action"
>> to describe, or better: to categories this process. This
>> brain-related process is in my view a less fundamental view to the
>> world, even though a helpful one.
>>
>> But again: mass and charge are not the same category. It is true that
>> there would be no inertia if there would not be charges in the world.
>>
>> But taken in this was, mass is a consequence of charges (and a
>> dynamical consequence). So one could say: a consequence on a higher
>> level.
>>
>> And for "time" I agree that this is a structural way of humans to
>> categorize motion. "Space" may be a structural way to treat the
>> effect of charges.
>>
>> >
>>
>> >
>>
>> > *Twin Paradox:*
>>
>> >
>>
>> > You mentioned the twin paradox is explained by the Lorenz
>>
>> > transformation since t'=t/sqrt(1-v*v/c*c) which describes time dilation
>>
>> >
>>
>> > How do you avoid the paradox in the following experiment
>>
>> >
>>
>> > Two twins are accelerated with a small short pulse in opposite
>> directions.
>>
>> >
>>
>> > At some very long time they are both reversed with a double pulse
>>
>> >
>>
>> > when they meet they are stopped by a short pulse.
>>
>> >
>>
>> > The experiment is completely symmetric. both twins experience the same
>>
>> > acceleration pulse so gravity clock effects are equal and can be
>>
>> > eliminated from a comparison but not eliminated is the arbitrarily
>>
>> > long period where they are traveling with a velocity relative to each
>>
>> > other. Since the time dilation formula only contains
>>
>> >
>>
>> > velocity squared the direction of relative travel does not make a
>>
>> > difference. If the theory is correct there is a paradox and gravity
>>
>> > cannot explain it.
>>
>> >
>>
>> First: this whole process has absolutely nothing to do with gravity. Why
>>
>> do you connect it to gravity?
>>
>> And second: the whole process as you describe it is completely
>>
>> symmetrical. Both twins make the same experience with time and with
>>
>> there according ageing. Where the hell do you see a paradox? I cannot
>>
>> see a paradox and the whole thing is as simple as it can be.
>>
>> >
>>
>> > *do my Emails show up in the general discussion I keep only getting
>>
>> > replies from people who send them directly and my E-mails do not show
>>
>> > up in the discussion forum, so I'm wondering?*
>>
>> >
>>
>> To test it, you may sent this mail again without my address in the list;
>>
>> then I can tell you (if informed) if I got it.
>>
>> >
>>
>> > Best,
>>
>> >
>>
>> > wolf
>>
>> >
>>
>> Best
>>
>> Albrecht
>>
>>
---
Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren geprüft.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20170524/a351c9c5/attachment.htm>
More information about the General
mailing list